Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Flash7

An In-Depth look at Luck's season

26 posts in this topic

Man that is a lot of data...would take the fun out of watching a game having to track all of that. I'll stick with the eye ball approach which means for the first time ever after loosing a playoff game I can actually watch the other games because we no longer have a window closing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I really get out of that is Andrew threw way too much this season.  The article points out that Pagano was supposed to implement a ground and pound type offense and we couldn't have been further from that this year.  I sure hope next year Luck isn't throwing the ball as much and is a little more accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I really get out of that is Andrew threw way too much this season. The article points out that Pagano was supposed to implement a ground and pound type offense and we couldn't have been further from that this year. I sure hope next year Luck isn't throwing the ball as much and is a little more accurate.
Hard to run the ball when your oline won't block.

Only Ground & Pound we had was Luck getting Pounded to the Ground.

But hey, the Off-season looks promising

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this article is well though out and provides a valid assessment of our QB. Please note that I posted this thread as a review of Luck and not to start a comparison debate. Please kindly refrain from doing so.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1477009-ignore-the-raw-numbers-andrew-luck-had-a-great-rookie-season

 

 

 

Nice find and I think the stats are pretty telling. If you read through this , they are pretty much saying everything that surrounded the rookie was crap. 

 

1) No running game

2) No protection

3) Too many drops

4) No seperation by the receivers

5) Bad defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 & 4 had a lot to do with Andrew throwing Late/Behind his receivers a HUGE% of the time.

This added to the degree of difficulty to Make the catch and brought the defender into the play as the ball arrived.

Andrew will get better in year two and better in year three as he works with his boys. Just a part of Building the Monster.

It ain`t no Gimme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that really stuck out for me this year was our 3rd down conversion.  3rd and short was nothing special, but when we got into those ridiculous 3rd and long situations, we would easily convert them.  I believe we led the league in converting 3rd and 8+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 & 4 had a lot to do with Andrew throwing Late/Behind his receivers a HUGE% of the time.

This added to the degree of difficulty to Make the catch and brought the defender into the play as the ball arrived.

Andrew will get better in year two and better in year three as he works with his boys. Just a part of Building the Monster.

It ain`t no Gimme

 

 

Uhh... ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You better hope the talking heads stop telling everyone how great this kid is, or we'll be paying Peyton Money for Mark Sanchez output at the QB position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Sanchez output??? Please...everyone knows that Sanchez took the Jets to the AFCCG. Luck didn't even do that!...lol

But seriously though, Mark Sanchez? C'mon Man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nice find and I think the stats are pretty telling. If you read through this , they are pretty much saying everything that surrounded the rookie was crap. 

 

1) No running game

2) No protection

3) Too many drops

4) No seperation by the receivers

5) Bad defense

A quick response:

1) No running game: Check

2) No protection: Check

3) Too many drops: Check

4) No seperation by the receivers: Check (debatable really)

5) Bad defense: Check (mostly)

Sounds about right, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to read till I saw it was bleacher report

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You better hope the talking heads stop telling everyone how great this kid is, or we'll be paying Peyton Money for Mark Sanchez output at the QB position.

The talking heads don't influence contracts. Pro organizations can decide for themselves whether or not a guy is any good. If Luck is as terrible as you like to imply, then we have nothing to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The talking heads don't influence contracts. Pro organizations can decide for themselves whether or not a guy is any good. If Luck is as terrible as you like to imply, then we have nothing to worry about.

 

 

Plus he's under contract for the 1st 4 years and the club has an option for a 5th at the average salary of the top ten qbs. So there is zero negotiation until 2017. Plenty of time for ownwership to figure his market value. Why do we even respnd to such silly stuff ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was going to read till I saw it was bleacher report

 

Why?

 

Well you missed out on a technical and lengthy, but very well thought out article.

 

Here are the authors credentials-

 

Scott Kacsmar writes for Cold, Hard Football Facts, NBC Sports, Colts Authority and contributes data to Pro-Football-Reference.com and NFL Network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was going to read till I saw it was bleacher report

 

Why?

 

Well you missed out on a technical and lengthy, but very well thought out article.

 

Here are the authors credentials-

 

Scott Kacsmar writes for Cold, Hard Football Facts, NBC Sports, Colts Authority and contributes data to Pro-Football-Reference.com and NFL Network.

 

Yeah, I normally don't read Bleacher Report either, but this is an exception. Great, great stuff.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why?

 

Well you missed out on a technical and lengthy, but very well thought out article.

 

Here are the authors credentials-

 

Scott Kacsmar writes for Cold, Hard Football Facts, NBC Sports, Colts Authority and contributes data to Pro-Football-Reference.com and NFL Network.

Because 99.9% of the time bleacher report is an absolute joke....and I only find two the sites the guy writes for to be decent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I normally don't read Bleacher Report either, but this is an exception. Great, great stuff.

 

I know people react to bleacher report like it is one of the worst tabloids in a supermarket checkout line. At ime, with good reason.  I have found good articles submitted there once in a while by some very credentialed folks.  Then I get to thinking about the movie my kids made me watch a while back. Ratatouille.  Basic motto was 'anyone can cook'.  After watching th show, the real interpretation is anyone can cook, but not everyone can, but a cook can come from anyone. From the most unexpected of beings and places.

 

To me, same with writers, and writing sites.  Writers with credentials usually have the goods, and earned their credentials for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because 99.9% of the time bleacher report is an absolute joke....and I only find two the sites the guy writes for to be decent

Meatloaf- 2 out of 3 ain't bad.   ;)  {actually, it's 2 out of 4, isn't it?  LOL}

 

You're allowed to feel that way.  I've found at least 2 great article from reputable writers there, so I won't abandon them completely myself.  you can go and read it if you want, you don't have to tell us.   :oops:

 

How abut his data contributions to NFLN and Pro Football Reference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meatloaf- 2 out of 3 ain't bad.   ;)  {actually, it's 2 out of 4, isn't it?  LOL}

 

You're allowed to feel that way.  I've found at least 2 great article from reputable writers there, so I won't abandon them completely myself.  you can go and read it if you want, you don't have to tell us.   :oops:

 

How abut his data contributions to NFLN and Pro Football Reference?

Those are the two I respected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are the two I respected

 

Me too, but I lean some on NBC Sports and Cold Hard Facts a lot too.  Not so much Colts Authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You better hope the talking heads stop telling everyone how great this kid is, or we'll be paying Peyton Money for Mark Sanchez output at the QB position.

I didn't realize Mark Sanchez had that many comeback wins and passed for that many yards. Didn't know Sanchez could put a team on his back either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess Bleacher report is suddenly "credible".

 

Oh my goodness.

 

This is not your average Bleacher Report article. It's a statistical analysis of Luck's season. It's not a "Luck's Ten Best Throws" list that's designed to increase ad revenue. It's a legitimate article that you'd probably find informative and enjoyable. It's not an issue of credibility.

 

Or you can sit back and ignore it because of the site it's posted to. Your loss.

 

Trust me, I have a big problem with the majority of things posted to Bleacher Report. I can't stand their set-up, and 90% of their stuff is crap. This particular article is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh my goodness.

 

This is not your average Bleacher Report article. It's a statistical analysis of Luck's season. It's not a "Luck's Ten Best Throws" list that's designed to increase ad revenue. It's a legitimate article that you'd probably find informative and enjoyable. It's not an issue of credibility.

 

Or you can sit back and ignore it because of the site it's posted to. Your loss.

 

Trust me, I have a big problem with the majority of things posted to Bleacher Report. I can't stand their set-up, and 90% of their stuff is crap. This particular article is not.

Oh ha ha i see. it was in inside jab to another poster who thought the daily news wasn't a reputable source for a point i as making on another thread.

 

Disregard.

 

I read the article yesterday, so don't worry... found it to be somewhat accurate but guilty of ommision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh ha ha i see. it was in inside jab to another poster who thought the daily news wasn't a reputable source for a point i as making on another thread.

 

Disregard.

 

I read the article yesterday, so don't worry... found it to be somewhat accurate but guilty of ommision.

 

Okay, my bad. This article wasn't perfect, but it's one of the best I've seen on that site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.